Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffJonathan Aizen Date: Jul 21, 2003 9:56am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Need For Flac? (Was Re: Rollin' In The Hay)

The FLAC format is open source... end of story really. Open formats allow people in the future to create players. SHN is closed.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kwaved Date: Jul 21, 2003 5:28pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Need For Flac? (Was Re: Rollin' In The Hay)

Aside from the open source issue which, as Jon mentioned is a biggie, FLAC is MUCH more versatile in that you can compress audio of various bit depth and frequency. This makes FLAC more widely useful over a much fuller range of recordings, ie 24bit and beyond.

Think of FLAC as providing a superset of the capabilities of SHN.

This post was modified by kwaved on 2003-07-22 00:28:32

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Jul 21, 2003 11:56pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Flac vs Shorten- both open for our use

Actually, Shorten source is not closed for noncommercial use (the use here, and for most every fan on the net). Here is the original license agreement:
http://research.umbc.edu/~hamilton/shnlicense.txt

That is how we've had so many fan-generated versions of Shorten- including for earlier Mac OS, which as Tribe points out is still a current advantage for Shorten. Flac people, get to work on backwards compatibility! ;)

This post was modified by hamilton on 2003-07-22 06:56:27